Mulpuru, S K

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) originating from the left ventricular summit may be unsuccessful, highlighting the need for alternative approaches. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel dual-modality focal catheter in treating left ventricular summit PVCs in patients who had failed previous RF ablation. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled and underwent a redo ablation procedure using an irrigated, contact-force sensing, dual-modality focal catheter (TactiFlex Duo, Abbott) under compassionate use indication. The ablation strategy, including the choice of energy modality (monopolar pulsed field [PF], RF, or both), was left to the operator’s discretion. Safety assessments included serial biomarkers, renal function, and CMR within 36 hours. Efficacy was defined as ≥80% reduction in PVC burden with symptom resolution at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Six consecutive patients (4 men; mean age, 53.8±15 years) with symptomatic left ventricular summit PVCs and a prior failed RF ablation (range, 1–2) were prospectively enrolled. All PVCs had an inferior axis, with a left bundle V1 morphology observed in 4 of 6 cases (mean burden, 30.1±5.3%). Acute suppression of PVCs was achieved in all cases. Acute suppression with a single PF application in the great cardiac vein-anterior interventricular vein occurred in 2 patients, while 3 patients required additional RF, PF, or combined RF+PF applications at adjacent sites. One patient with an inaccessible great cardiac vein-anterior interventricular vein was successfully treated in the left ventricular outflow tract with RF+PF application. Transient, reversible left anterior descending vasospasm was observed during PF delivery in 2 of 5 cases that underwent PF application adjacent to a coronary artery, despite pretreatment with intracoronary nitroglycerin without ECG or hemodynamic sequelae. All patients had durable suppression of PVCs at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In its first human application, dual-modality ablation was feasible and effective for refractory left ventricular summit PVCs. Transient coronary vasospasm occurred, though it was reversible and without acute clinical consequences.

Abstract Background The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD) was designed to avoid lead-related complications associated with transvenous systems and deliver features such as anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and reduced generator size that provide an advantage over a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). As such, the EV-ICD is an attractive alternative for younger patients with genetic heart diseases (GHDs) who are not in need of permanent pacing. Objective To examine the indications, complications, and the clinical outcomes of patients with GHDs who received an EV-ICD. Methods A retrospective review of the electronic record was done for all GHD patients evaluated in genetic heart rhythm and/or cardiomyopathy clinics who had an EV-ICD implanted between 1/2021 and 2/2025. Basic demographic, ICD indications, complications, and therapy data were then extracted for all study patients. Results Overall, 23 patients (35% female; mean age 39 ± 16 years; 61% with a disease-causative genetic variant; mean LVEF 57%) with an underlying GHD (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 9, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy in 8, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation in 3, dilated cardiomyopathy in 2, and long QT syndrome in 1) had an EV-ICD implanted. For the majority, an EV-ICD was implanted for primary prevention (15/23; 65%) and represented their first ICD system (21/23; 91%). The success rate of the procedure was 96% with only one abandoned procedure because of poor R-wave sensing. Inadvertent intraprocedural lead placement in the pericardial space occurred in 1 patient with previous thoracotomy and surgically placed epicardial lead without sequelae or need for revision. Over a mean follow-up of 8±9 months, the rate of complications was low (1/23; 4%) with one electrode displacement and this patient underwent defibrillation threshold testing (DFT), the device properly detected VF and emitted a successful shock 30 J. Thus far, 2 patients have received appropriate VT/VF-terminating therapies (3 ICD shocks, 0 ATP) with successful conversion to sinus rhythm. One patient died following an electrical storm. One patient had 3 inappropriate ICD shock for sinus tachycardia while exercising followed by 1 successful shock for VF. Conclusion In this early experience, EV-ICDs appear to be safe and effective in younger patients with genetic arrhythmogenic and hypertrophic cardiomyopathies. Future studies are needed to better understand the utility of EV-ICDs in patients with cardiac channelopathies and advantages of EV-ICDs over transvenous and S-ICD systems in patients with an array of sudden death-predisposing GHDs.